Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

A sixth DPBSD MP3 submission from anotherscott! This MP3 is from the Casio Privia PX-3, the default main AP voice "Grand Piano 1". But as a bonus anotherscott also recorded the second voice "Grand Piano 2" which I have also uploaded to the share point:

My analysis and careful listening tell me that these two voices are almost certainly identical to the first and seventh piano voices (respectively) in the Privia PX-330, so I'll direct you to that post (LINK) for a review of the sound technology in the PX-3 rather than repeat myself here.

I ran across the PX-3 at our local Guitar Center a couple of months ago but I didn't play around with it enough to form any solid opinions. From a brief comparison of the manuals it looks like they share pretty much the same knobs, buttons, I/O, and number of tones and effects. The PX-3 lacks the speakers found on the PX-330 but gains an "ivory touch" feel to the keys. Surprisingly the MIDI recorder function is missing in the PX-3, though the ability to play MIDI files is still there. Duet mode and the metronome are gone, with the corresponding buttons given over assignable functions. Also missing are the auto-accompaniment and rhythms of the PX-330. The PX-3 is probably the better choice between the two if you are looking for a portable MIDI controller as it has four assignable zones - and indeed this is the way it is marketed.

Now over to anotherscott who owns the PX-3 and has many insightful comments regarding it:

Originally Posted By: anotherscott

There are numerous differences between the PX-3 and the PX-330 that I feel are worthy of a little more exposition...

FEEL: I initially thought that the PX-3 and PX-330 had basically the same action except for the nicer ivory-ish feeling to the surface of the keys on the PX-3. But when I had a little more opportunity to play them side by side, I concluded that there's more to it than that... the actual action on the PX-3 feels better to play... the bottom travel of the key feels a bit more solid and less mushy, I definitely like it better. I still feel it offers too much "push back", I still prefer some older Casios (and the Yamaha P-95), but I do like the PX-3 feel better than the PX-330. I am curious to know if anyone else can confirm the different feels of the two keyboards, just to make sure I wasn't simply experiencing unit-to-unit variation. But in my experience, you can even "hear" the difference in the mechanics of the keyboard, as the sound of the key hitting bottom is quite different, something certainly not explainable by simply less glossy key surfaces.

SOUND QUALITY: While the piano sounds seem no better than those of the PX-330, you can at least alter them somewhat with built-in sound editing functions. I have not had a chance to play with that, yet, though I am not optimistic that that will address what I personally find to be the shortcomings of the piano sound in both of these models. However, the sound quality of some of the other patches in the PX-3 are far superior to those in the PX-330. If you're using it for more than piano, you will find what are, to my ears, far better EPs, Organs, and Strings. There may be other improved patches as well, but those are the ones I noticed right away. You can also adjust the sounds through a handful of editing parameters, including attack, release, and filter cutoff, and there is a built-in variable 4-band EQ.

PERFORMANCE VERSATILITY: The PX-3 is a much better performance keyboard. Here are a few examples of the kinds of things you can do on a PX-3 that you cannot do on a PX-330:

* Play left hand bass with a bass patch (or left hand chords with a pad sound, whatever) while playing some other sound (i.e. piano) with your right hand, then change your right hand patch to another sound (organ, piano+strings, lead synth, whatever) while continuing to play your left hand sound without interruption.

* Pan two layered or split sounds so that one sound is coming out of the left output and the other is coming out the right output. This allows you to do many useful things like having a volume pedal affect one sound but not the other (i.e. you can fade strings in and out under piano), or send a bass guitar sound separately to a bass amp (or to a house mixer to give the sound man separate control over the "bass"), or send the organ sound alone out to a higher quality rotary effect pedal, etc.

* Assign performance functions to two assignable buttons, for things like adding modulation, turning portamento (glide) on and off, or changing the speed of the organ rotary effect (the rotary effect itself, unfortunately, is rather lame... but better than nothing)

* Treat sounds on external MIDI modules (or other keyboards) as extensions of its own sounds by creating your own presets ("registrations") that not only store PX-3 settings, but store settings for the other attached devices as well. For example, you can create a PX-3 patch that transmits on different MIDI channels on each side of the split point, calls up the desired patches on the external devices, octave shifts them if necessary, and adjusts their volume balance and pan position.

* Layer two different sounds on either side of the split point (the PX-330 only permits layering above the split point)... and each of the four sounds can be an internal PX-3 sound or a sound from an external MIDI sound module or other keyboard.

* The PX-3 panel writing, while still not great, is much easier to read, especially on stage with less than optimum lighting.

Thanks again to anotherscott for providing the analysis files and in-depth comments for this inexpensive stage piano / controller!

The MP6 pedal sympathetic resonance effect is realistically subtle, and does a lot to smooth out the quick pulsating sound of a group of decaying notes looping together. The key sympathetic resonance also sounds nice, with both lower and higher notes subtly responding - unfortunately it doesn't seem to work when playing the piano voice via MIDI. JFP kindly suppled a separate MP3 where the keyboard is manually played so you can hear this effect for yourself.

JFP also confirmed that there is a key-up sound effect associated with playing lower notes loudly and then releasing them quickly. It isn't clear to me as to whether or not this plays back via MIDI, and the DPBSD don't have a specific test for it that might make it more audible.

The sample set of the main piano seems to be some kind of blend between CN33 (PHI) and MP10 (UPHI). The MP6 has the same visible (though not audible in either DP) velocity layer switches of the CN33, but the lowest notes of the MP6 have longer attack and decay samples than the CN33. In fact, as JFP pointed out to me, the attack and decay sample lengths are a fairly close match to the MP10, which is interesting:

I did a mashup of the MP10 and MP6 layer test hoping to better hear any differences between them (link above). I don't hear tons of difference, though the MP10 sounds a bit more "open" than the MP6. The brightest layer at the top end of the MP10 velocity has a fairly jarring layer switch:

As usual I compressed the layer test of the MP6 20:1 in Audition to listen to timbre variation with velocity while largely negating amplitude changes through the test. This also helps to make the layers more visible in the spectral pan and phase views in Audition. I've including it here for anyone that wants to listen to it (link above) as well as a link to the similar file for the MP10. The upper ~1/4 velocity range of the MP6 sounds rather static to me. (Pay no attention to the buzzy mosquito noise at the beginning of each, that's an artifact from a previous normalization.)

Taking a quick peek at the manual, it appears the MP6 shares the no-nonsense controls and intuitive layout of the MP8, with added MIDI and audio recording functionality. The pitchbend and modulation wheels are located on the control panel rather than in the keybed area. No wall-wart, and it has a music rest. Pretty sweet.

Figure 2. Spectral frequency view of the key sympathetic resonance test played manually. First "blob" is the C4 stimulus plus resonance, later (at cursor) C3 is lifted, later C5 & C6 are lifted. The effect is audibly pleasant with both lower and higher notes subtly responding.

Figure 3. Waveform view of the looping test with vertical zoom applied. Decay times for the low and mid notes are nice and long.

Figure 4. Spectral phase view of the note C3, normalized to -1 dB to bring out detail, cursor at end of attack crossfade. Attack & loop samples are quite clearly seen here.

I find it really interesting when DP manufacturers go to the trouble of including fundamentally different piano samples in a particular model. The main piano patch is the usually best, with the other piano voices rather more compromised in terms of implementation, at which point one is perhaps left wondering how much better the main voice could have be had they dispensed with the secondary voices altogether and used the freed-up resources for the main piano. The flip side of this coin is if the other voice or voices are good enough, then the player has a fallback position should the main piano be faulty, not to one's taste, or not suited to a particular playing style.

Much like the HI / PHI / UPHI mashups I did a while ago, I thought it might be interesting to listen to a few mashups of three different acoustic piano voices in the latest Kawai MP10, which are "Concert Grand", "Pop Piano", and "Jazz Grand 1". Here is how Kawai characterizes them in the MP10 manual:

I limited the sample lengths so that the loop sections are adequately represented but not so long as to induce ennui in the listener. Each DP sample set was bulk normalized to -1dB peak before being mashed.

Each DP sample set (velocity 1:127) was bulk normalized so that velocity 127 = -1dB peak before being mashed.

What I hear: - Concert sounds nice and bright, Pop sounds more nasal (forward?) than the others.

III. Layer Timbre Variation

Figure 3. Spectral frequency view of the third mashup. All three voices seem to have a comparable number of layers. Layer transitions are most visible for the Concert and Jazz pianos, the Pop piano layer transitions appear more blended.

Figure 4. Spectral pan view of the third mashup. Layer transitions are visible for all. Jazz stereo image is rather erratic looking.

Each sample set (velocity 1:127) was bulk compressed 20:1 to largely eliminate any amplitude variation but leave in place any timbre variation.

What I hear: - Concert: Several of the early layer switches are audible, the very last one is quite audible.- Pop: The best blended of the three.- Jazz: Severe stereo image and timbre issues between several of the layers.

ConclusionsThe Concert voice could have better blending of the layers, particularly the transition to the highest one, but is otherwise nicely done. The Pop voice seems to be around the same quality level as the Concert, with better layer blending. The Jazz voice is perhaps unusable due to the severely mismatched layers.

I'd be very interested in the opinions of PW members who own and play the MP10 as to the character / similarities / differences / likes / dislikes of the various piano voices in the MP10.

The XS piano voice is rather typical Yamaha, with echoy sounding pedal sympathetic resonance, and highly processed rather static sounding loops. I was a little surprised by the fact that the layers aren't very blended, with most timbre variation happening at the layer transitions. I also noticed at the start and end of the half pedaling test that partial pedaling modulates the note decay time but not the pedal sympathetic resonance effect, which strikes me as rather unrealistic. The resonance effect seems to be on or off with no in between, yet the decay time of the note follows how far the pedal is depressed.

Note decays times are pretty short in the looping test, a result at odds with anotherscott's perception of the XS. So we performed another test: I copied the DPBSD looping test to have 4x of them in a row, the first with all notes vel=127, the next 95, then 63 (this is the standard looping test in the DPBSD), then 31. What seems to be happening is this: key velocity is being used as an input variable to the AEG decay rate. This means that decay time is actually quite long when you strike the keys hard, but gets shorter as you hit keys more softly. In real pianos, for a given note, the decay rate is (to a first degree) constant, and decay time varies based on the energy initially input to the string. Since the XS has quite a bit of synth-like flexibility, I belive this behavior can be edited in order to better reflect reality, but it is strange to have this as part of the first factory patch.

anotherscott has this to say about the Motif XS rack piano voice:

Originally Posted By: anotherscott

I actually think pretty highly of the Rack XS piano... it doesn't sound as much like a "real piano" as some others, but there's something very musical and very playable about it.

We own the ES rack, and I really wish I'd held out for the XS version. The XS front panel makes a lot more sense in terms of layout, and it sports five extra rotary encoders in a matrix formation which must make quick edits much simpler. One thing I wasn't aware of when we ordered the ES is the enormous depth of the housing, which is listed as 372.4mm in the manual. The XS is actually deeper at 379.4mm (probably due to the front panel knobs). Either way, the unit is really deep, and won't fit in most shallow rack rack boxes made for effects.

With the transition from ES to XS Yamaha apparently dropped the dual PLG board expansion capability and top access door, but added an mLAN16E2 (FireWire) option to the rear. Several of the PLG expansion boards look pretty interesting: there's the usual boring smattering of sample expansions, but there's also a DX-like FM synth, an AN1x DSP analog synth, a virtual acoustic synth, and a vocoder - all of which I would love to own, but accessing them via the cryptic ES front panel and menus doesn't seem like it would be very much fun.

Figure 3. Waveform view of the extra decay test we performed on the XS, which is the looping test @ vel=127, 95, 63 (the DPBSD standard - highlighted), and 31. Vertical zoom applied to see the noise floor. The decay time is nice and long at higher velocities, and unrealistically short for lower velocities (though this can likely be corrected via editing).

Figure 4. Spectral phase view of the note C3, normalized to -1dB to increase clarity, cursor at attack / loop transition. Attacks are fairly long (as these things go) but loops samples are short and highly processed.

Figure 5. Spectral pan view of the stretch test, middle notes, normalized to -1dB to increase clarity. This voice is fairly stretched, and stretch group transitions are audible over the low and middle range.

Figure 6. Spectral frequency view of the layer test, cursor located at first layer transition. All three layer transitions are audible, with little timber variation within each layer.

Figure 7. Waveform view of the layer test, cursor located at the second layer transition. The third layer transition is also clearly seen here.

At first I thought it was different, but when I read that the Kawai MP10 failed, it sounded like it failed the same way I've found it to fail (on other DPs, haven't tried the MP10 yet).

If it is the same, I think you should update the results to include whether the sympathetic resonance is cut off when you release the damper while still holding down the silently replayed note. (It should be cut off.)

This was actually the subject of my very first post here! It's so frustrating to find this flaw persisting year after year.

Depress the sustain pedal and strike a note or chord. Lift off the keys while holding the sustain pedal. The notes will sustain, of course, along with sympathetic resonance. Now, while still holding down the sustain pedal, depress the same keys but slowly enough so that no new notes are sounded. While holding down the notes, take your foot off the sustain pedal.

The DPBSD silent replay test is slightly different. In the readme file it is cryptically described like this:

Which means:1. C2 is played at MIDI velocity 100.2. One second later the damper pedal is fully depressed.3. One second later C2 is lifted.4. One second later C2 is played at MIDI velocity 1.5. One second later the damper pedal is fully lifted. 6. One second later C2 is lifted and G5 is played at MIDI velocity 15 to signal the end of the test.

To fully pass the test, the initial C2 must decay all the way through to the end with no damping. No audible replay at at step 4 is a plus.

jscomposer
500 Post Club Member
Registered: 10/27/08
Posts: 537
Loc: The Boogie Down

OK, I got it.

For the Kawai digitals (primarily concerned with the MP10), does MIDI velocity 1 produce a new note? You might have to crank the volume or zoom in on your waveforms to detect it. And what's the lowest MIDI velocity that produces a new note? I remember trying an EP3, and no matter how slowly I pressed a key, it'd sound a note at the bottom.

Version 1.03 of the RD-700NX firmware has fixed MIDI SYSEX data request messages! I was getting no response before to a data dump request. I updated the NX MIDI post here if anyone is interested. There is a link there to my MIDI test files too.

The main piano voice in the FP-7F sounds to me and tests essentially identically to the the main piano voice in the RD-700NX. Except for pedal sympathetic resonance (which is highly dependent on the effect settings) all of the spectral views are virtually indistinguishable between these two DPs. So if you buy the FP-7F it seems almost certain that you are getting the same quality main piano voice as in the NX. If you want more discussion of that voice itself I'll direct you to the NX review.

All three SN pianos in the FP-7F sound like and appear to be variations of one basic sample set, rather than the three more distinctly different APs in the NX. Though the FP-7F gives you IMO the best voice in the NX, the "Concert Grand" - I'm not sure how useful Studio or Brilliant are in the NX but it is interesting having them in there.

VivatRudolphus has this to say about the FP-7F:

Originally Posted By: VivatRudolphus

My impressions on the piano (I've owned it only for a couple of weeks): this is the first digital piano I've owned, so I am no expert at all, but I found the whole device to be really well build and solid. I bought this piano for home use, I didn't bother about having a cabinet and instead preferred a stage piano since it is easier to move and more practical. I needed integrated speakers for when I don't want to wear any headphones while practicing. For a gigging musician it'd be quite heavy to move though, but heh, usually more weight means better action and I'm fine with that.

The piano is a pleasure to play, I like the action a lot because most of the other DP actions I've tried had an unpleasant springy feeling to them (I tried some Korgs and Yamahas at the store, but I don't remember the names of the models). The only thing I'd change is I'd make the bottoming out feeling less bouncy, but maybe this will become smoother with time. I also like the feeling of the keys, they absorb moisture well and are pleasant to touch. One of the things I liked about this piano is how smooth the tonal changes between velocities are, even though sometimes I have the feeling the action is a bit too sensitive.

The 3 piano voices are quite different, and I'd say the default one is a mix of voices 2 and 3. The second voice sounds like a small grand piano to me, whereas the first has more cabinet resonance (even though it is adjustable). Also, maybe it's because of this, but the second voice seems to me a bit warmer than the first, even though the first one seems to make use of a larger frequency range. I like the third piano voice too, it's very suitable to play faster stuff like boogie-woogie, and it's a lively singing voice.

Regarding the touch of the keyboard, at first I lowered its sensitivity, making it a bit harder (halfway between medium and hard sensitivity) in order to make better use of the dynamics, but as of late I'm trying to adjust to the medium touch setting, which probably gives the better sense of connection to the instrument.

I find the interface simple to use and pretty straightforward. One of the things I miss from it is being able to use one pedal to control the rotary speed effect on the organs (you can do almost anything with a pedal, but not this), and being able to use the looper without any drums or bass pattern, I wonder if Roland could add those simple things in a software update.

Lastly, I've had much fun with the looper, it's a very nice function, and I've noticed EP sounds (which are not that great to be honest) work better with a lighter touch setting. Also, even though it's heavily layered, I think the Vintage EP voice in the "other" voices section could work if you need some more bark. The acoustic bass voice is very nice too imo, it reacts very well to different velocities and it's a well rounded voice.

The note chop issue in the FP-7F seems less severe than it was in the NX before the latest v1.03 NX firmware was released. I don't think I can hear it at all unless there is a backing track playing. The layered string drop issue reportedly still exists in the FP-7F though. Let's hope Roland is working on a fix for that.

The harpsichord in the FP-7F is almost certainly NOT SN! It is highly stretched, I believe the loops are very short, and the spectral pan view looks strangely almost like it is mono - though it sounds like stereo and the spectral phase views look normal. Oh well, maybe someday Roland will make a SN harpsichord and stick it in their newest stage piano.

The MIDI files are at the share point as well for those who are interested in turning on all of the features in the FP-7F for recording. You might also want to look here for clues on how to crack this problem in the HP307. This can be a very steep hill to climb, even for someone fairly experienced with MIDI. Roland really should turn all the piano sound effects and resonances on by default for MIDI playback, and have them all editable via the front panel during MIDI playback (like they are in the NX). Users shouldn't have to go out of their way to get the same sound whether playing via the built-in keys or via MIDI (most likely recorded via the built-in keys).

Thanks again to VivatRudolphus, who really went above and beyond in providing us with so many excellent samples of this intriguing new DP!

Figures 2A thru 2D. Spectral pan view of the stretch test, normalized to -1 dB to bring out detail, mid notes, RD-700NX "Concert Grand" @ top, followed by FP-7F "Grand Piano1", "Grand Piano2", and "Grand Piano3" @ bottom. All have essentially the same spectral signature and sound like they share the same fundamental sample set. Relative to "Grand Piano1", the "Grand Piano2" voice seems to be transposed down one note, and "Grand Piano3" up one note - not a big deal but it's odd, I don't think I've ever encountered this before.

Proof that the three main piano voices in the FP are indeed SN voices...which is what I have been saying all along.

I don't know if the observation I'm going to make moves us any closer to what SN actually is but even the (awful) rock piano on FP-7F has a SN decay. If I strike a note and sustain it and listen I hear what sounds like the original piano die quite quickly (in the centre of the stereo field - quite mono-ish actually) and then it almost sounds like the lush stereo SN decay is overlaid, so the decay ends up sounding just like one of the other SN voices (even though the piano is totally different). I think they've invented a way to overlay a nice, natural sounding decay on top of anything (well, any piano). I don't like the rock piano so I haven't listened for audible stretching or velocity layers but the SN decay is perhaps a generic thing now for Roland - maybe they can equip any underlying sample with the same decay. And perhaps it explains why, once the initial attack has gone, they all sound pretty much the same as they decay.

... it almost sounds like the lush stereo SN decay is overlaid, so the decay ends up sounding just like one of the other SN voices (even though the piano is totally different). I think they've invented a way to overlay a nice, natural sounding decay on top of anything (well, any piano). I don't like the rock piano so I haven't listened for audible stretching or velocity layers but the SN decay is perhaps a generic thing now for Roland - maybe they can equip any underlying sample with the same decay. And perhaps it explains why, once the initial attack has gone, they all sound pretty much the same as they decay.

This is essentially the hypothesis posited by cybergene almost a year ago. Sounds plausible.

In light of the recent finding that there is one SN piano (with three variations) in the Roland FP-7F, I thought I'd post a few analysis pictures of the three SN pianos in the RD-700NX for comparison purposes. To me, they sound quite different from each other, much more so than the three piano voices in the FP-7F. Please note that the NX "Concert Grand" voice is the same as "Grand Piano1" in the FP-7F, and I think most would prefer it to the "Studio Grand" or "Brilliant Grand" voices in the NX, so you probably aren't missing to much with the absence of these other voices in the FP-7F (or HP-30x, or RD-300NX). Still, I will gladly take any and all different piano voices in my DP, particularly if their presence isn't negatively impacting the main voice (due to the limited memory issues that still seem to be plaguing modern DPs).

Quite a bit of visual (and audible) variation here, there's really no visual match of any sort between the 3 piano voices in the NX. What this implies in terms of how the voices are actually processed and generated I can only guess.

But compare and contrast these to the spectral "fingerprints" of the three FP-7F piano voices in the review above. Even with heavy EQ (or whatever Roland is doing to make the pianos sound different in the FP-7F) the visual correlations strongly indicate a common source for all three FP-7F piano voices.

Was this supposed to be my cue for saying "esSteve, I told you so"? Because I don't really feel like it. We should focus instead on trying to form a common view of reality.

The gist: FP-7F has one basic SN piano with three (EQ?) variations. Harpsichord is not SN.

So: Those who said there is only one SN piano in there were right. Those who said all three pianos are SN were right. Those who said only the first piano is SN were wrong. Those who said the harpsichord voice is SN were wrong. Those who said the FP-7F main piano is likely inferior to the main NX piano were wrong.

Not that I care all that much about who was right and who was wrong, I'm just after the truth.

I think a lot of this confusion is to be expected due to:1. The "SuperNATURAL" logo only appearing on the screen of the first FP-7F piano,2. The harpsichord being included in the FP-7F SN piano bank,3. Lack of clarity from Roland re. SN in their various DP products.

Although it is perhaps not very realistic to set an acoustic piano patch to this setting, I have rendered the DPBSD2.0 file with the CP-5 CF Grand patch modified to maximum decay settings, as it is my hope that this file may prove interesting or revealing when further analyzing the SCM technology.

Sampletekk says this is a "Super detailed multisampled Grand Piano. No less then 93 unique samples per recorded note. Over 4400 samples!" If you do the math, 4400 samples divided by 88 notes gives 50 samples per note, so something has to give in order to produce 93 samples per note. In this instance apparently what gave was in the stretching department, as the 88 notes are represented by 50 stretch groups. If I were constructing this sample set I think I'd use some of those 4400 samples to eliminate stretching, rather than in upping the layer count to herculean levels. Stretch group transitions are fairly audible too, aggravated by rather poor timbre matching between adjacent groups.

Because pedal sympathetic resonance is most likely sampled, it sounds realistic and nice. The samples themselves are refreshingly unlooped, but the low and mid notes could use more sample time as the decays here are somewhat short. As you might expect from so many layer samples, there is no audible layer switching (for middle C at least). Like many PC samplers, it lacks key sympathetic resonance, and it fails all of the key / pedal tests. There are no pedal up/down sound effects, and the note-off sounds oddly like a briefly replayed note, though perhaps this is somewhat adjustable via whatever playback engine one uses for this sample set.

luisdent has this to say about it:

Originally Posted By: luisdent

Sampletekk did tell me that the release samples might perform differently in another sample player other than esx24. There are actually two different sample sets with the same samples but a different release configuration. I chose the full configuration. There is a "no release" configuration for esx. I believe the difference might be a better release control over the volume perhaps? I'm not sure. Anyhow, as it doesn't come with a sample player i have no way to test this. Nonetheless, the alternative is no release, which i think sounds worse... Not too bad for an inexpensive sampled piano. Although I prefer the galaxy vintage d over the sampletekk now that's I've tried it. :-)

Figure 4. Spectral pan view of the stretch test, mid notes, normalized to -1dB to increase clarity. Given its sheer number of samples, the Seven Seas C7 is surprisingly moderately stretched, with audible stretch group transitions over the low and mid note ranges.

Figure 2. Mid tear-out. Had to remove the crazy fascia over the cabinets, and tearing off the Formica backsplash damaged the wallboard. Via fancy footwork, I was able to keep the kitchen mostly functional throughout.

I've been working on our house so much lately (nearing the end of a kitchen renovation, see above) that the DPBSD files to review are starting to back up even more alarmingly than usual.

With all the pictures and such the reviews are taking longer and longer to do - it's reaching the point where it's threatening to cut into my extremely rigid goofing-off schedule. And since I just got a new toy helicopter we can't have that! (Syma S107 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/8499000606 - $22 - it's a total blast!)

So I've decided for now to pare the review posts back to just my text review and any user remarks. Pictures are fun, but I suspect most regulars here have seen enough of them for a while. I'll still post a pic or two if anything super interesting or out-of-the-ordinary crops up. And I'll continue to put the usual set of analysis pix themselves (in a ZIP archive) and MP3s at the share point for those interested.

My pleasure! Unfortunately my DPBSD work (and everything else I'd much rather be doing) has been somewhat stinted due to the kitchen.

Originally Posted By: 10fingers

Nice job on the kitchen!

Thanks! I'm coming to the conclusion that I just need to build my own house and do it right in the first place. During the kitchen tear-out I discovered a hair-raising sight: The lower cabinet calculations were apparently off in the plus direction, so they simply cut a hole in the end drywall to accommodate. Ye gods, I thought I'd seen it all in this house until I saw that. And don't even ask about the upstairs toilet.

Before buying, I had a selection of several DP below EUR 850 (Casio CDP200R, PX330, PX130, Korg 170, Yamaha P95...) to choose from and I had an experienced painist test them and he really liked the touch and sound of DGX-640. I also liked it a lot in the store. After playing it for some time at home, I am a bit less impressed with the main piano voice, but still absolutely acceptable for my skill level. I also use many other sounds and especially layered voices. In general, I think it is a good instrument for the money, the action is light, but I do not have much trouble switching between this DP and an acoustic grand piano. Mechanically, the action is a bit noisy.

Yesterday I downloaded a demo of the latest version of Adobe Audition, the CS5.5 edition.

Imagine my shock when I found that Adobe, in their infinite wisdom, had removed the spectral pan and phase views. When did the word "upgrade" come to encompass the downgrading / elimination of central core features? I figured Adobe would ultimately screw up CoolEdit, I just didn't expect it quite this soon.